Talk:Chiropractic education

Chiropractor

Should Chiropractor really redirect here? Isn't a redirect to the more NPOV article Chiropractic better? The talk page on Chiropractor already redirects to Chiropractic's talk page. 83.176.195.249 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

PhDc

I have seen several individuals in the U.S. using the designation/honorific "PhDc". One in particular claimed to be a "chiropractic neurologist". Upon investigation into chiropractic colleges, however, I can't find any conferring this degree or at least listing the degree program on their websites. Who/what is going on here? Are they accredited by the same boards that accredit Palmer and the like? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.58.147 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic degrees are essentially self-created and bestowed by various schools. Palmer called himself a "doctor" and gave DC degrees to his son and other students, and that tradition is still followed. I don't know of any school which currently issues the PhDc degree. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting articles

• Chiropractic Colleges Seek Legitimacy Amid Financial Woes, By Andrea Fuller, The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 15, 2012

• Presidential Couple at Chiropractic College Draws Fire Over Wife's Role, By Jack Stripling, The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 15, 2012

Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename article to chiropractic school for consistency across WP for health care professions

I propose that the article be re-named 'chiropractic school' just as it done for veterinary school and medical school. DVMt (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I support the change. Rytyho usa (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I go about doing it? DVMt (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Three things - not POV content related (please leave that out of this thread).

1. This article was improperly renamed. When renaming an article in its entirety, it is not acceptable to copy and paste. I had placed the {{db-histmerge}} tag on this page, but DVMt reverted it saying, "rmv merge with history, this is about schools of chiropractic (education). This article reflects current practices as well.". db-histmerge is a maintenance template to correct the improper move, as bobrayner mentioned below. He re-added the tag and it needs to stay so an admin can fix the history of this article.
2. Why pick "Schools of Chiropractic" as the title? You had mentioned "just as it done for veterinary school and medical school" and "The article was renamed from "chiropractic education" to "Schools of Chiropractic" keeping in line with MED manual of style such as Medical school or Veterinary school". There is nothing in MOS:MED about this. Furthermore, there is no article named "Schools of medicine" or "Schools of veterinary medicine". The articles that do exist are named Medical school and Veterinary school. There is also an article titled Medical education, which mentions all of the phases of medical education - medical school being one of them. Veterinary school is only about that one phase in veterinary education, so that is the appropriate title there. To parallel med/vet school, this article should be named either "Chiropractic school" or "Chiropractic education". If this article is supposed to by strictly about chiropractic school, then that should be the title of this article. As it also mentions the basic sciences as a component, fellowships/post-graduate education, and licensure, "chiropratic education" seems like the more appropriate title. I'd recommend formatting this article like Medical education in the United States(/Medical education). If the content specific to chiropractic schools becomes significantly expanded, I'd fork that content to "Chiropractic school" (like Medical school in the United States(/Medical school)). If there then becomes enough content by country, then make articles by country.
3. Titles should be in sentence case per WP:NCCAPS. So appropriate titles would be "Chiropractic education", or "Chiropractic school". I don't tink the current title is appropriate as per #2, but the proper capitalization would be "Schools of chiropractic".

In summary, I think this article should be moved back to Chiropractic education. This relates to the intended scope of the article. Again, please do not bring content neutrality up here. It is not relevant to the title. --Scott Alter (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the scope of the article and arguments derived from MOS:MED, Chiropractic education appears the most sensible choice. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Schools of chiropractic is preferred since it is in the same vein as 'Medical school' and 'Veterinary school'. Should Chiropractic not be capitalized if it is a proper title? If that's the sticking point, I don't see why it can't be changed to School of chiropractic if that makes things easier. DVMt (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"School of chiropractic" would be better per the various manuals of style; I think "Chiropractic school" reads better but that's just a subjective issue. However, as Scottalter observes above, the use of the term "school(s)" in the title would indicate a narrower range of content than the article currently comprises. If it is deemed desirable to keep content beyond that strictly relevant to chiropractic schools than the broader term "education" should be preferred. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The history merge has been taken care of now which was the major concern. Thank you TParis! Now, Fiachra, do you want to change the article name or should we let the dust settle for a bit and see? DVMt (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The histmerge wasn't a major concern, rather something that needed to be fixed due to an improper page move. The question is still the scope of the article. Should it be limited to chiropractic school, or the more encompassing chiropractic education? And I still do not understand why you think "Schools of chiropractic" is preferred. You keep saying the same thing without elaborating. In the vein of Medical school and Veterinary school (or Law school, Business school, etc.), the format is "Xxxxx school". Therefore, the appropriate corollary is "Chiropractic school". There are also articles like Medical education, Legal education, Business education...the chiropractic corollary is "Chiropractic education". I think "Chiropractic education" makes the most sense for this article, which is what this article was named 3 days ago. Based on WP:BRD, maybe I should just revert it back. --Scott Alter (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Scott, let me take a look at medical education, medical school etc. and I'll give you my reply within 24 hours. I don't oppose renaming the article if it matches up with others that are the same. Is this OK? DVMt (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I was just wondering why it was renamed in the first place. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Fiachra and Scott. It is the article content that determines the name. The suggested name change (which has been done without following proper procedure or discussion and consensus) would be a much narrower article, with loss of valuable content. We need a good consensus to change the title and narrow the focus so radically. This also applies to other articles which DVMt is working on.

Many of the chiropractic articles, including this one, are proper article forks, simply because the main Chiropractic article would be too large, but the subjects still needed to be covered. By creating the proper forks, while still maintaining short summations and links in the main article, we have a number of excellent articles which are now being messed up and destroyed. Follow proper procedure. Don't act like a bull in a china closet. Unilateral editing isn't always wrong when it's minor matters, but things like adding or deleting large chunks of information, deleting any properly sourced information, making changes to the lede, changing the titles of articles, etc., all of these things should never be done alone without thorough discussion and a proper consensus. As a relatively new editor (at least with this username....), it would be wise to stick to more minor matters for some time. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer please spare me the sermon. You are suggesting that I'm messing up and destroying articles, while accusing of me acting like a bull in a china closet essentially telling me to ignore a core WIkipedia guideline and then attacking my character and integrity by suggesting I'm a sock puppet or nefarious editor? Do you have any idea how insulting and condescending your tone is? Please be civil Brangifer, and please do pay attention to your language and choice of words. DVMt (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've requested the page be moved back to Chiropractic education, as there is not consensus for this change. If, after discussion, a decision on a different name is chosen, it can be moved again. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality problem

This article treats chiropractic as a straightforward legitimate medical profession, rather than alluding to any problems with evidence base, efficacy, pseudoscience, or quackery. Isn't that a problem? bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, was this article created by a cut-and-paste move? Where is the history before February 2013? bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The evidence base is discussed at length in the article (see evidence-based guidelines). Efficacy for manual and manipulative therapy is presented at length too, as is safety. We must be careful about promoting fringe which is why WP:MEDRS guides us in this regard. Do you have a problem with the sources being used? DVMt (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The evidence base and the broader problems of chiropractic are discussed at length in the Chiropractic article, but this article seems to go out of its way to avoid linking there, which is quite remarkable for a 31k article on chiropractic education. The new paragraph about the evidence-base is an improvement but the article still skirts around the problem by hinting at some areas where the effectiveness of Chiropractic has been studied, without actually mentioning the results of that study. This article completely avoids the uncomfortable fact that chiropractic is made up and that it's useless for most conditions. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway. Was this article created by a cut-and-paste move? Where is the history before February 2013? bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's also frustrating that you removed this with the edit summary "not part of education; no primary sources in lead, is history, etc..." even though the content and the underlying source both explicitly discuss education; the source is secondary rather than primary; and both the content and the underlying source discuss the present day rather than being purely historical. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, here and here are two separate cases where you delete sourced content about low admissions standards whilst pretending you're doing something completely different in the edit summary. I will restore that content; clearly a lot of work is needed to approach neutral coverage on various chiropractic articles. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you want a wiki-link to Chiropractic. That's not a problem. Your assertion that 'Chiropractic is made up' and that it's 'useless for most conditions' is highly POV, but also shows that you've failed to even read the article. See the "Interventions" sub-article which describes in depth of effectiveness and safety. The article was renamed from "chiropractic education" to "Schools of Chiropractic" keeping in line with MED manual of style such as Medical school or Veterinary school. The low American standards are indeed placed in the USA section of education. DVMt (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD you must discuss why you are inserting a primary source within the lead that has nothing to do about education and 2) why you are duplicating the USA material in non-USA section? DVMt (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you reverted again "per BRD" without giving any reason for your bizarre notion that the Forbes article is a primary source or that commentary on pseudoscience in chiropractic education is, err, unrelated to chiropractic education. Since you didn't actually mention it here, by trawling through your old edits I found the previous page that you copy & pasted into this one; that's another problem which ought to be fixed. (Although it appears that the size of the text is not exactly equal; did anything else change during the move?) bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You should strongly consider reading this and this prior to editing medical-related content. DVMt (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Bobrayner that he is currently engaged in an edit war here [1]. He has failed to discuss the concerns listed above for his reinsertion of bold edits using a primary source in the lead then misusing the Meeker reference. DVMt (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this primary source from the lead. It is a primary news article in Forbes magazine, not suitable for the lead.Puhlaa (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Warning templates ... that should pacify the situation. Best not to escalate through template attack in my opinion. I was asked to comment here by User:DVMt.

Two issues then: copy and paste from an article and whether chiropractic is sufficiently bashed as pseudoscience etc in this article. If there's been a copy and paste move of content into this article from another it is problematic because you've taken the work of other editors without giving them proper attribution. There are procedures for taking content from another article; see WP:PROSPLIT for details (basically you need to add a {{copied}} template to both the source and destination pages). It's not a huge deal and I did a few copy and page splits myself before I was directed to the appropriate policy documents.

Bashing then. User:Bobrayner complains above about the reversion by DVMt of this edit from the lead which states: "D.D. Palmer invented chiropractic in the 1890s, based on his belief that misalignments of the spine are responsible for a wide range of health problems; chiropractic schools continue to teach this pseudoscientific nonsense even in the present day." Whatever the scientific basis of chiropractic, the second sentence does not employ encyclopedic language (particularly in terms of tone) and was, in my opinion, properly reverted. For statements about the medico-scientific standing of chiropractic, a business magazine would not be an ideal source; I'm also not convinced of the merits of starting an undeveloped section on the history of chiropractic in the lead. The lead should summarise the body of the text and therefore you should first make edits to the main text of the article before determining if they are sufficiently significant to the article topic to be added to the lead.

Bobrayner refers to two separate cases where [DVMt] delete[d] sourced content about low admissions standards whilst pretending [they were] doing something completely different in the edit summary". The first case refers to this text:"In the USA, chiropractic schools tend to have lower entry requirements than medical or dental schools.". However, the text wasn't actually deleted. Rather, it was moved to the end of the paragraph of the section on the US. If it's going to be in the lead it should first be in the main body of the text and, as the observation was about US schools, that seems the correct location (although one can argue about its placement in that paragraph). As to whether it merits inclusion in the lead, I'm not sure. You'd have to look at the source - and indeed other sources - and see what kind of weight it is given and how applicable is the point (my guess is something like that, if supportable, probably should go in the lead). In the second case, a lot of text was removed on the basis that, according to DVMt's edit summary, "re-organize, rmv national associations in favor of international, and fellowships and desginations". Whether one agrees with the edit or not, this is a pretty accurate description of his actions (probably not; chiropractic, I think, has a greater presence in the US than any other country – although this claim requires a source to substantiate it – and, therefore, a bias towards US schools may be warranted). While DVMt's edit removed a lot of text (and also added a considerable amount) the likely text removal that Bobrayner is referring to is the following:"In 2005, only one chiropractic college required a bachelors degree as an admission requirement." I wouldn't see this as the most telling piece of information about chiropractic education. Bobrayner readded it to the "Components" section of the article (along with the statement about lower entry requirements which thus appeared twice in the article); this was removed by DVMt followed by a further restoration and revert and then DVMt readded the material to the section on the US (which in my opinion probably makes more sense although, again, one could argue about its placement in that paragraph). While the methods may not have been ideal, currently the statements about lower entry requirements and only needing a BA in one school are in the article text and probably within the most appropriate section.

Anyhow, you should stop edit-warring as someone will get blocked or we will have to go ANI or something stupid like that.

As to how critical the article should be, given the article topic I would tend to favour criticisms that addressed chiropractic education directly rather than more generalised statements about the evidence base, or lack thereof, for chiropractic manipulation which is covered more substantially in the main article. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed analysis. I think it accurately reflects what is going on and your recommendations are sound and logical. DVMt (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A new page should not have been created for this article. Rather, "Schools of chiropractic" should have been page moved and subsequently edited if it was felt that changes were needed.FiachraByrne (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that by moving pages there would be a loss of edit history. I had proposed a move a few weeks ago at TALK and no one disagreed so I went ahead and was bold. I wanted to capitalize the 'C' in Chiropractic as it is a proper title. Anyway that we can maintain the current content and somehow untangle the attribution problem? This was my first move page so this is a learning experience for me. DVMt (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - been there & done that myself. What happens during the history merge process? They temporarily delete this article? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, this in unchartered territory for me. I don't know how the process works. Any suggestions? DVMt (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

I've removed an image which appears to be a copyright violation. Please don't reinsert copyright violations into articles over and over again. bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, can you prove this image is copy written? It was in the public domain and was not obtained from CMCC. Your edit summary also said "apparent". Is it customary to delete images before they've been proven to have a copyright? DVMt (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The image appears at [2]. You have claimed that you are the copyright holder in the image. Did you license that copyright to cmcc so they could post it on their site or did you lie about being the copyright holder? TippyGoomba (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The image should be remain off the article until this issue is resolved. DVMt, where did you get the image? You say here that you acquired it from the public domain, but in the image summary, you describe it as your own work. Given the discrepancy, and its appears on the school's website, the image should be assumed to be copyright protected until proven otherwise. When you acquire images from the public domain, it is important to demonstrate where you found the image, so its free-use status is clear to other editors, rather than claim it as your own original work. Rytyho usa (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and will request it be sent for speedy deletion. The new image has been approved already, so that should satisfy the matter. Regards, DVMt (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information, including interventions

Bobrayner, can you please explain why you are deleting the interventions taught in chiropractic school?

Perhaps there has been some confusion. Content with a source is called "sourced". Content without a source is called "unsourced". Reinserting unsourced content whilst insisting it's sourced is called "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So, do we need a source that MDs prescribe drugs or do surgeries? Do we need a source stating in France they speak French? You did delete systematic reviews too, as well as common knowledge (i.e. chiropractors learn manipulative and other conservative therapies in school). What exactly do you dispute? DVMt (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course those require a source. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly if he is reverting your edits, he disputes it all? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe tag

This article does not discuss the controversies concerning the effectiveness of chiropractic, and so should be revised to refer to those controversies. The "parent" article on chiropractic is balanced. I have applied the fringe tag to this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps, but take a look at Chiropractic controversy and criticism‎#Efficacy. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a different article. The problem is that this article doesn't mention that the efficacy of chiropractic is normally considered to be a fringe theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert, there no discussion of the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of manual therapies in this article because this article has nothing to do with the efficacy of manual therapies. This article is about the education of chiropractors. Do you have any current and reliable sources that are discussing the controversy surrounding the education of chiropractors? If so, lets discuss adding them to this article. If you want to discuss controversy around efficacy then the discussion belongs in the general chiropractic article, the Chiropractic controversy and criticism‎#Efficacy or the manual therapy article.Puhlaa (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the fringe tag, as per above discussion.Puhlaa (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User TippyGoomba, you have restored the fringe tag here, claiming that it "is still a fringe issue". Please read [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fringe_theories this] on how to use such tags. I will point to one instruction in particular:

"The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."

I removed the tag after the editor who originally added it failed to engage in any discussion. TippyGoomba, your drive-by revert was certainly not helpful, nor apppropriate IMO. I have removed the tag again, as I am willing to address any concerns you have with the article, just need to list some specific issues.Puhlaa (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The article must include the fringe theory if the article continues to contain chiropractic theory (eg proposed mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy and safety). As I see it, the only section that really delves into chiropractic theory is the "Investigations" section. If that section remains, we need to provide some reference to the other side - to those that believe chiropractic is a inefficacious pseudoscience. Honestly, I don't think that section belongs in the article at all. It is not about chiropractic education, it's about chiropractic research. Those are very different subjects. Rytyho usa (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that the "investigations" section is out of place in this article. I would support removing this text; either to move it into the spinal manipulation article, or just eliminate it all together. There is no need to discuss (eg proposed mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy and safety) here. Puhlaa (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't belong here, and is likely already covered elsewhere, so just delete it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's move duplicated content to this article

The following sections are largely identical:

• Chiropractor#Regulation_and_accreditation
• Chiropractic_education#Licensure_and_regulation

The content should be merged and then moved to their logical place here at Chiropractic_education#Licensure_and_regulation. Please discuss at Talk:Chiropractor#Let.27s_move_duplicated_content_to_Chiropractic_education, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OFFTOPIC tag

UserQuackGuru please explain your thoughts behind this edit note and tag and this edit note. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the tag at the topic of the page was added because of the off-topic Chiropractic controversy and criticism section and I want to focus on the main problem. The content is not per WP:SYNC. The content is per WP:COATTRACK. Education is not about criticism of chiropractic in general. It is not specific criticism of education. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, done here Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

May be up to three sentences is fine. One sentence is better. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

User:The Quixotic Potato - you tagged the article for POV; you need to say what you find wrong, or the tag needs to come off. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Sorry I type quite slowly. QuackGuru described the inclusion of a Chiropractic controversy and criticism-section as a WP:COATRACK. I think the entire article itself may be a WP:POVFORK. I think we can all agree that Scientology is bullshit. If I split up the main Scientology article into many different articles about aspects of Scientology while ensuring that negativity is limited to a single section near the bottom of the main article then our articles about Scientology would portray Scientology in a far more positive light than most reliable sources do. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying but this is unclear. What do you think should actually happen to this content? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The best solution would probably be to merge this back into Chiropractic, but that is unlikely to happen because merging articles hasn't been properly implemented in MediaWiki and it is difficult to do it manually WP:HISTMERGE. So the next best thing is probably to mention the fact that systematic reviews of research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective in the WP:LEAD. If the tag really annoys you (I know those tags can be very annoying) then feel free to remove it, but I don't think we've reached the perfect equilibrium of NPOV yet. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am watching this article - no need to ping me. I don't understand. The Chiropractic article is very long and merging this there would make that too big; that is why it was split. Again what do you actually find POV in this article? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the article treats this as if it is a legitimate medical profession. I think the WP:LEAD should start with something like "Chiropractic education is X, Chiropraxy is Y" and then include something like: "Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[5] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition." (preferably a shorter version) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that is more clear and actionable, thanks. How is this? Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that can only be described as "more and better than what I asked for". Thank you. Sorry for being unclear; translating thought into words is sometimes difficult (and I am not a native speaker). Tag removed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about education. It is not about chiropractic in general. See WP:COATRACK. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

“ I think we can all agree that Scientology is bullshit. If I split up the main Scientology article into many different articles about aspects of Scientology while ensuring that negativity is limited to a single section near the bottom of the main article then our articles about Scientology would portray Scientology in a far more positive light than most reliable sources do. ” — The Quixotic Potato

This article should focus on the education. Off-topic content is not going to work. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What content is offtopic? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The content that is not about education. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, like I tried to explain, using that strategy is a bad idea, because it means that someone can write a thousand articles about all aspects of scientology and then demand that the information that explains what the article is about is hidden in the main article somewhere else (because it portrays scientology in a negative light). We shouldn't just describe Scientology education (you know, stuff about Xenu), we should also explain what Scientology education is (relative to the rest of the Universe(s)). If we find multiple reliable sources that say that most math teachers in America are simply writing down random numbers and symbols (imagine that the whole idea of math is some kind of elaborate joke that started in the early 50's) then that information is probably relevant to the math education article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not relevant whether it is or is not effective. The title of this article is "Chiropractic education". That should be the focus of the article. Off-topic content is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The content is ontopic. The topic is "Chiropractic education", so we should explain what that is relative to other things and concepts in the universe. And the strategy you seem to propose would not lead us towards neutrality (and it is generally a bad idea, like I've tried to explain before). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Others things are other than "Chiropractic education", which are off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A description of what chiropractic education is relative to other things in the universe is ontopic. Also, please read WP:POVFORK and the stuff I've written above. The metaphor with the math teachers gets stronger when you replace them with dentists. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Things that are not specifically about education are not relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A description of what chiropractic education is relative to other things in the universe is (obviously) relevant. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You wrote in part "other things in the universe..." The part "other things in the universe" is other than chiropractic education. It appears you acknowledged it is other than chiropractic education. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears you don't understand what I wrote. Also, since the premise is faulty the entire exercise seems kinda pointless to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You have not shown why we should include "other things in the universe" not specifically about chiropractic education. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Even worse, I haven't even argued that we should include things not specifically about chiropractic education! Why would I show you why we should do that when I don't really think we should? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Very well then. I deleted the off-topic content and added relevant content. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And I undid your edit. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought you agreed to exclude off-topic content. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep using that strategy? The idea behind it is incorrect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you restore off-topic content that is obviously not about chiropractic education? QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That horse is dead. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

per PSCI we need to say something along these lines QG, as you well know. I did my best to keep it minimal. Please keep in mind that there are DS on altmed. I suggest you stop trying to completely remove this, and consider dropping the issue altogether. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary NPOV subsection

Hi there. I have added a few templates to the page that I thought were most relevant. While I broadly think that the article is fairly well-written, I also do have some concerns. I will elaborate on this within 48 hours from now. Doonagatha (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been well past 48 hours, and those templates are not appropriate. I have left a new section below explaining why, and unless there's a reason for them to be there I'm inclined to remove them. Semmendinger (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Information in 1st paragraph

Look, I know the internet at large and vast parts of this website have an inherent bias against Chiropractic, but this article is about Chiropractic education, not the effectiveness of Chiropractic. The first paragraph is written in a manner that automatically starts to discredit Chiropractic (whether or not it is effective isn't central to the topic at hand.) I'd like to remove that and allow this article to be written on what its title is all about. Not if you believe in chiropractic, not if it works or not, but what the education of D.C. students looks like. Semmendinger (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Semmendinger, it is more than the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Right you are. I'm most concerned with that part however, since that's the area that's supposed to describe the rest of the article. Semmendinger (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look closer at this edit, text that was on-topic was also deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, him again. He has a say in every chiro-related article, and not in a NPOV way. Can't say I'm surprised at that blatant bias. Semmendinger (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The draft is finished. I cleaned up the off-topic mess. See Talk:Chiropractic education/Draft. After you are done fine tuning it please add it to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell what is different and am not going waste time trying to figure it out. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The off-topic text is too much of a distraction at this point. User:Semmendinger noticed the problem. The main difference is "Occupation". The off-topic stuff was deleted in the draft. The on-topic stuff was restored. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have included in your draft all the edits I made on the main page. I'm more content with how it stands. Semmendinger (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did include all your edits. It makes no sense to keep the off-topic content. See for example: "A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[8]" This is not relevant to education. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I removed it. Happy to see the first section is finally bias-free. I'd like to get rid of that template at top, certainly 40 sources constitute a well-cited article, especially at this length. I'll get to work on filling in more of the spots that require a citation, if possible. Semmendinger (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is still in "Occupation" along with the other off-topic content. I fixed all the off-topic concerns in the draft. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant I had removed it in the intro because I noticed it was C&P from Occupation, wasn't going to tackle that beast just yet, thanks for doing it. When will you put the draft version on the main page? Semmendinger (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to say if it is not removed from the body it could be re-added to the lede to summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• i've restored the content about the status of this field in the lead and the body. we had a big discussion about this already, above. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You can't hide behind fringe if the purpose of this article isn't about the occupation. Leave it later in the article if you want, but it has no place in the opening section. It's an article about education, not if the profession is founded on theories you agree with. Semmendinger (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as it is in the body editors can say they are summarizing the body and will include it in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Love loopholes. The first section is higher percent slander than it is about the topic. When the pejorative bias is longer than the rest of the article's main focus, you know you're up against people who can't disseminate bias from NPOV. Semmendinger (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does WP:PSCI say off-topic content is essential? QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

don't know what "hiding" is going on. My edits are public and PSCI is policy. QG as you know we don't present PSCI content without noting that it is PSCI; it is not offtopic. That is the argument you have been making here and it has gotten no support outside of chiro-fans. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Chiropractic education". Anything that is not about education is clearly off-topic. Where does PSCI say off-topic content improves an article? I did include text about a controversy that is on-topic in the draft. See "Mixer chiropractic schools offer more medical training, which initially resulted in significant controversy.[2]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I understand you despise chiropractic, but I'd be embarrassed to leave bias on the page under the false pretense that PSCI needs to be included. If it's not relevant than it need not be included. This is an article about education, not about the profession in its own right. There are many other pages on Wikipedia that explore the negatives of chiropractic (trust me). This is a page that explains the education process, and potential readers shouldn't be confronted with propaganda against the profession when they aren't reading this page for that reason. Semmendinger (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to add on, if they want to read all that negative-chiro stuff, they can just follow the "Main article: Chiropractic" link. Arguably, those sections with a redirect should be succinct, as it is in the Draft QG posted, because if anyone cares to read it they'll just go to the main page. If they go to the main article page they'll see enough negative about chiropractic to last a lifetime. I fail to see how it's relevant in a topic about education still. Semmendinger (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

i don't despise chiro and i am sorry you are trying to personalize the dispute. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies then. The fact that you stated above "That is the argument you have been making here and it has gotten no support outside of chiro-fans." led me to believe you were making it about chiro vs medicine/something else. I guess I read it incorrectly, if so, apologies. Despite this, it shouldn't matter if the opinion is more strongly based in "chiro-fans", medicine, etc, it should matter if the content adheres to NPOV or not. Please respond to the real points I made in my post above instead of feigning offense. We're having a discussion, you didn't keep on subject, I'm asking for your response. Semmendinger (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is really simple. This is about educating people about X, a big chunk of which is pseudoscience. it would violate policy to not say that. If you look above and at article edits, you will see that i had pared discussion of that back a boatload in response to Quackguru before, but they are relentless (an endearing quality in them, sometimes) But we cannot completely omit it. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If that wasn't patronizing then I don't know what it. I guess at its base this is a just turning into a fruitless request for decency on this site. I understand your reasoning but cannot accept that they are the only way to conduct things. If it was any other chiropractic article I'd likely agree, but I just can't fathom how defamation to a profession is allowed in a topic on education. Ah, well. Semmendinger (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not an article about education generally, it is about education in a specific topic. That topic happens to be shot through with pseudoscience. Per policy we need to say that. I am sorry you find that patronizing. Not my intention. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The draft says there is a controversy using on-topic content. QuackGuru (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft is moving forward

At this point the draft focuses on chiropractic education specifically. Pro-quackery off-topic content is no longer in the draft. Hurray! QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The draft looks great but it has nothing about pseudoscience and that is going to have to be there, somehow, if this has a chance of flying. Please see what you can do. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that there is any policy which indicates that we need to say anything about pseudoscience in the article; WP:PSCI refers to fringe topics and chiropractic is most definitely not fringe. Regardless of how editors feel about the evidentiary support, chiropractic is a prominent profession and has wide political and public support. Since the question of whether or not chiropractic is fringe would determine if PSCI applies, and since PSCI is the foundation of the primary argument in favour of suggesting pseudoscience here, I would suggest that this should be the topic of an RFC - "is chiropractic considered fringe?" In the meantime, if editors want to include information about those parts of the chiropractic education that may be considered pseudoscientific, then they should at least keep it specific to how it relates to chiropractic education. Here are some current and relevant reliable sources:

1. Regarding chiropractic education regulators: "The term subluxation was found only once (CCE-USA) and vitalism did not appear in any educational standard documents...Terminology relating explicitly to EBP appears to be lacking in the educational standard documentation of CCEs. Therefore, future revisions of accreditation standards should address lack of terminology." [3]
2. Regarding chiropractic curricula: "Despite the controversies and paucity of evidence the term subluxation is still found often within the chiropractic curricula of most North American chiropractic programs...Three schools made no mention of the term subluxation in their academic catalogs; they were National University of Health Sciences, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, and Southern California University of Health Sciences." [4]
3. Regarding how there is a relationship between chiropractic schools and pseudoscience: "Chiropractic program attended is a significant predictor of orthodox vs unorthodox faction membership and professional practice characteristics for Canadian DCs. This suggests that the current chiropractic education system may contribute to multiple professional identities." [5] 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic is obviously covered by our WP:FRINGE guidelines since its underlying concepts are pseudoscientific. A quick check at WP:FT/N would confirm this. Basically we're not going to have an article about quackery without mentioning that rather important fact: NPOV 101. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If chiropractic is in fact 'obviously' covered by WP:fringe, that very policy seems to suggest that you are wrongfully applying the term pseudoscience here. WP:fringe suggests that chiropractic would be considered a 'questionable science': "Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." Consistent with the ideas of 'substantial following' and 'under debate', high quality sources tell us that: "chiropractic is licensed in all 50 states. An estimated 1 of 3 persons with lower back pain is treated by chiropractors. Since 1972, Medicare has reimbursed patients for chiropractic treatments, and these treatments are covered as well by most major insurance companies. In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research removed much of the onus of marginality from chiropractic by declaring that spinal manipulation can alleviate low back pain. In addition, the profession is growing: the number of chiropractors in the United States—now at 50,000—is expected to double by 2010 (whereas the number of physicians is expected to increase by only 16%)." I think if this was an article about vitalism, or innate intelligence then it could be called unambiguously pseudoscience, however, since today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence, the profession itself and their education seems to be more consistent with questionable science as defined by WP:fringe. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We follow RS not the dubious arguments of anonymous Wikipedia editors. As I said, check at WP:FT/N if in doubt. Alexbrn (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That is definitely a good way to approach editing wikipedia Alexbrn, perhaps you will take your own advice? You will obviously have noted that I have backed-up each claim I made above with a quote from wikipedia policy, or a quote from a reliable source in a medical journal. I have noted that you have come with some claims about pseudoscience and chiropractic and yet have not provided any reliable source or policy that support your assertions. As such, I would like to remind you that we follow RS and not the dubious arguments of hypocritical and obviously biased wikipedia editors. Moreover, you have criticized me for being anonymous, yet there is no policy against editing anonymously either; do you often make up rules to bully other editors and try and get your way? Please come back with policy or sources that support your claim, or move on to articles where you can make a meaningful contribution. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Also check out WP:PROFRINGE and maybe swing by List of topics characterized as pseudoscience to see how policy applies. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the article list of topics characterized as pseudoscience is not relevant and it is a confusing statement coming from an experienced editor; we do not use other wikipedia articles as sources to defend our positions; good editors know to use reliable sources and policy. Moreover, that article has repeatedly been defended as allowing any topic that has ever been characterized as pseudoscience to be included, not necessarily only those topics that have been established as 'unambiguously pseudoscientific' per WP:fringe. As I mentioned above, supported by policy and reliable sources, (but you seem to have ignored) when I look at the WP:fringe policy you pointed out, it obviously suggests that chiropractic is considered questionable science, not pseudoscience. As such, I am still not sure what point you are trying to indirectly and cryptically make. Please quote a specific policy that says we need to make sure that 'questionable science' is labelled as pseudoscience in the article or please provide a reliable source that indicates chiropractic is obviously pseudoscience and not 'questionable science'. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RS calls chiropractic pseudomedicine/pseudoscience and Wikipedia reflects that. Obvious. If in doubt (for the third time) check at WP:FT/N where a large number of editors well versed in the application of WP:FRINGE can also clue you in. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If RS calls chiropractic "education" pseudomedicine/pseudoscience then we can use those sources. Please provide the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

QG, WP:PSCI applies to "any inclusion of pseudoscientific views" (my bold) not just when the topic title is in 1:1 alignment with pseudoscientific views. Your reading of policy is way off. If we're mentioning fringe topics we have to be explicit that they're fringe. If in doubt, I invite you too to test your views with the wider expertise at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please provide sources that say "chiropractic education" has pseudoscientific views. This is the second time I am requesting sources. Please stay on topic about "education". QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, we're done here. The paragraph contains text such as "cultism" and "pseudoscience". That will replace all the current disputed text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

hm, you just made me laugh in a wry kind of way. seriously QG. you know that is not we are talking about. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The source must make the connection with "chiropractic education" otherwise it does not belong in this article. I did the best I can do with what sources are available that explicitly make that connection. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but no. I believe you were one of those who argued for splitting this out of the main article, and we ended up with the "Occupation" section to describe the field that folks are being educated in; that section needs to mention pseudoscience and because the lead summarizes the body, the lead will mention it too. If this had not been split, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it was. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not recently argue to split up content from the main article. The spilt is "Chiropractic controversy and criticism". You copied text from the Chiropractic controversy and criticism. After there was objection you shortened it and then later added text from the main article that is not about chiropractic education. The main article is for describing the field. Not this article. You claimed "If this had not been split, we wouldn't be having this discussion." Actually, you originally added the forked content way back on 23:23, 25 June 2016 when there was no discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I did say "I believe" and if you say you didn't, you didn't. there was some continued discussion somewhere that prompted me to move "training" content from the main article here in this diff back in June. Anyway - what i said still stands. if this article were incorporated in the main article, this wouldn't be an issue, but as it is split out, and we discuss chiropractic generally in the Occupation section, we have to mention it there. Have to. (other professions do have training incorporated in the main article - see Neurosurgery, Ophthalmology, etc) Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion at chiropractor (not chiropractic) that prompted you to move "training" content from chiropractor which is not the main article here in this diff back in June. Soon after you made this edit that was not part of any discussion and is not relevant to this page. There is no good reason to discuss chiropractic generally in this article. The main article is for that. No policy says we should include general content when the article is specifically about a certain topic. For example, the article Education in Australia does not contain general content about Australia. Professions including chiropractic do have training incorporated in the main article. See Chiropractic#Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation. But the subarticles do not have general content about the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not responding further to unserious arguments. Bringing in "Education in Australia" is unserious. Don't waste my time and I will remind you of the DS on Chiropractic. I am reminding you of that once. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Medical References

I fail to see why this article needs medical references. Is this an article about a specific medical procedure? Is this article even in the realm of medicine? The answer on both those counts is no. This is an article about education, so I fail to see why there is a template at the top asking for more medically relevant information. It would be like asking for more medically relevant information on a doctorate of education. This is supposed to be an article about education, not healthcare. Semmendinger (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing Global tags

Two sections have templates stating they are not relevant enough to non-first world countries. The only countries in the world with a significant amount of practicing chiropractors are first world countries according to the World Federation of Chiropractic. Arguably, those in non-first world countries won't gain much from this article if the profession isn't quite relevant to them. Nor does it lend any objectivity to reshape those parts of the page to include areas where chiropractic barely exists. Unless a mention of the aforementioned lack of chiros should be added to the page (it should not, it's not relevant to the topic of education) I'm of the opinion the templates should be removed. Semmendinger (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractor title

Article should be titled Chiropractor.

I would like to elucidate and contribute to the article that lower back adjustments are dangerous, permanent in nature, and unnecessary. Also, I would like to contribute that chiropractic care done as a licensed professional under stringent certifications, not done so commercially, is medically practiced by Cedars-Sinai Hospital and the University of Southern California Medical School. 108.65.249.149 (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It may be well sourced but WP:OFFTOPIC content can be removed. I would remove off-topic content rather than change the title. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert of verifiable text

This revert is removing the chiropractic program currently offered in South Korea from the list of global chiropractic programs. The text includes a wikilink to the Wikipedia article about the university and the text also includes a link directly to the web page of the department of chiropractic in Hanseo university. The text is being removed with the edit summary “no source” and “wikilink is not a reliable source”. No mention was made of the link directly to the program web page; is this not a reliable source (the program's own website)? WP:V says that text must be verifiable; in this case, the text is easily verified by following the link to the university program. What further sources would Jytdog like to see in order to verify the claim that there is a chiropractic program in South Korea? 75.152.109.249 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks are not reliable sources and content should be sourced to independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the website of the university program is not a sufficient source to provide verification that the program/university exists? Please cite the relevant policy if this is what you are suggesting. Unless I am overlooking the specific policy, I think that your revert is unwarranted. If you still feel otherwise and cannot post a specific policy that supports your your suggestion then I am happy to post at the RS noticeboard for other opinions.75.152.109.249 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

yes. we want independent sources. Not spam advertising a university program. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I hardly think that the university website is spam; please try to edit more collaboratively by expanding on your replies so they include policy to support your opinion. Please show me policy for requiring independent sources to verify a university program exists. I gave you 5 days to justify your revert, and you chose to provide no policy-based argument, but you were willing to make the revert again within 1 hour of the edit...so I know you are watching. WP:RS says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources." In this case, we have a single, non-controversial claim that a chiropractic program exists in South Korea, a claim that is highly relevant to an article about chiropractic education, which lists global programs. Using the website of that program is verification that the program exists and the text and source do not contravene any of the exceptions listed at WP:RS, Please read WP:RS and feel free to come back with a policy based reason for excluding the fact that the program exists in South Korea. I suspect that in order to expand the section and discuss the characteristics of the program in Korea might require independent sources, but first we need to achieve consensus that we can verify the program exists.75.152.109.249 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is spam. If you had experience editing WP you would know that university programs are among the worse spammers we have. I found a few independent sources and will add content later today. Please write shorter notes. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The test page confirms it exists without a direct link to the university. See Talk:Chiropractic education/Draft#South Korea. QuackGuru (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That is great Jytdog; thanks for finding some independent sources! It was easy to verify that the program exists, but hopefully we can now also add some description about the program using the independent sources you found. I have restored the verifiable text (the university and it's chiropractic program exists), now we just need those additional independent sources you found to make the content more robust.75.152.109.249 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So we are back to non-collaborative editing? You still have not provided policy to support your deletion of sourced text; you have said that you have independent sources (so we both know the program is verifiable and that there are independent sources) and yet rather than just add your sources, you delete the verifiable text again? Can you please either provide policy to support your opinion that the verifiable text is inappropriate, or add your independent sources so that we can progress and improve the article. I am tiring of your games and do not really want to take it to a noticeboard...so collaborative editing would be appreciated.75.152.109.249 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN if you want to restore this content with independent refs that would be great. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Jytdog:

• per WP:Burden "All content must be verifiable." The text is indeed verifiable with a direct link to the program guide in the university website.
• per WP:Burden "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" We have not provided any quotations, so this point is not relevant.
• per WP:Burden "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." WP:RS says that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" as long as "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." Since we are only stating that the program exists and not making any self-serving claims about the program, a non-independent source is ok according to policy.

Sorry to push the issue, but you keep deleting text that seems to be sourced appropriately according to the policy you have alluded to. Can you please explain more specifically what you see as the issue and perhaps provide a specific citation from wikipedia policy to support your position. Alternatively, you have said that you found independent sources...I think that the most appropriate approach would be to just add the sources you have that support the text, rather than continuing to delete the text. What is your rationale behind deleting the relevant text instead of adding the sources you have? 75.152.109.249 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Systemic review of Chiropractic education includes systemic bias

Perhaps it's time to include a new section that describes how Chiropractic is lacking in oversight as well as the lack of medical malpractice investigations based on the premise that the patients are confused by the treatment, and because of the mix-up of adjustments and genuine physical therapy. How will you investigate chiropractors if 80% of what they do is correct and you have a remaining 20% of patients being maladjusted? (The answer is you can't). You can't investigate ethical standards without exposing the entire profession as a fraud.

Also, Chiropractic schools (alluding to the discussion about South Korea) are often commercial in nature, and cannot be used a medical reference. 96.40.157.106 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiropractic education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307084041/http://www.cceb.ca/english/exam/index.htm to http://cceb.ca/english/exam/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)